Renthia Kaimbi
The National Youth Service (NYS) has been operating with only four board members for more than a year, falling below the statutory minimum of seven prescribed by the NYS Act 6 of 2005.
A governance expert has warned that while decisions may not be automatically void, the arrangement creates a credible concern about compliance and heightens governance risks.
The current board comprises three members co-opted from the Namibian Police, Namibia Defence Force and Namibian Correctional Services, and one from the youth ministry, following the expiry of the previous board’s term in June 2025.
Sources have expressed fears that resolutions and directives passed under the status quo could be deemed null and void.
They also said the absence of critical subcommittees meant to ensure accountability over executive power has left the institution vulnerable.
When approached for comment, NYS Commissioner Felix Musukubili directed all queries elsewhere, stating: “Kindly engage the relevant authority. Board appointment is out of my scope and jurisdiction. Kindly engage with the ED or minister directly. They will be in a better position to assist.”
Responding to the Windhoek Observer, executive director in the ministry of education, innovation, youth, sports, arts and culture Gerard Vries, rejected what he called the characterisation of non-compliance.
He explained that following the expiry of the previous board’s term, a structured recruitment process was initiated, and four members were duly appointed as an interim measure, while remaining candidates underwent scrutiny and verification processes mandated by the appointing authority.
Vries stated that the delay in finalising the remaining board appointments is attributable to processes that fall outside the ministry’s jurisdiction.
He added that appointments are made by the President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah as head of service and that those processes have now been concluded.
The announcement of the remaining board members, he said, will be made public soon.
On the question of accountability, the ministry said it is satisfied that adequate mechanisms are in place, pointing to monthly and quarterly reports submitted to the executive director.
He noted that “to date, no material governance or financial risk has been identified as a result of the current board configuration.”
The ministry also clarified that no board subcommittees have been established under the current configuration, with members convening collectively as a full board.
“This arrangement ensures deliberations remain transparent and collective, mitigating the governance risks that fragmented subcommittee structures might otherwise present,” he stated.
“The absence of a fully constituted board does not mean, nor does the law require, that an institution ceases to function.”
Vries further noted that the NYS is not an isolated case, as several state-owned enterprises continue to operate while board appointment processes are being concluded. He declined to characterise the situation as a governance crisis.
Governance expert Johann Coetzee said operating with only four board members falls below the Act’s minimum of seven, which would constitute a governance concern and raise questions about compliance.
While the Act contains a provision validating decisions made despite a vacancy, Coetzee cautioned that a legal distinction exists between a board with a few vacancies and one that has fallen below the statutory minimum required for its existence.
“This creates a potentially significant legal question: Can a body that should legally have at least seven members continue exercising full board powers when only four members remain?” he asked, noting the answer would require interpretation by the courts or the attorney general.
Regarding allegations of an ‘iron fist’ leadership at the NYS, Coetzee said a weakened board reduces oversight and accountability, creating “a higher governance risk” from a corporate governance perspective.
He concluded that while decisions are not automatically void, there is a stronger argument that decisions could become vulnerable to legal challenge, adding that the bigger issue may be “governance legitimacy and oversight” rather than immediate invalidity of all board actions.
